Desert Fox wrote:I wonder if the Chicago market was poor in 2014. At northwestern, rumor was 2013 was a better year than 2014. I wonder if that was just because of the Chicago market and if it impacted Michigan as well.

IMO the "prestige" hypothesis is least convincing. I'd assume self selection is a much bigger factor in school to school variance.

Both NU and UChicago had an increase in LTFT BR employment, though. (In fact, not only did Chicago's LTFTBR rate increase, but the # of jobs in Illinois increased slightly, from 28.8% to 30.4%, while NU only had a marginal decrease (0.6%) in Illinois jobs.)

kingpin101 wrote:Once again I'm confused as to why people choose GULC when they could get into other T14 schools with better employment stats and often more generous scholarships.

I think a lot of 0Ls are surprised to learn just how much worse its placement is than the T13, and many of them don't figure it out until it's too late.

pamphleteer wrote:

hoos89 wrote:

Winston1984 wrote:Is it the T12, or the T13?

At least Michigan had 81.8% LTFTBR - SFJ, compared to GULC's 69.65% (which is worse than a bunch of non-T14 schools).

Jesus that's brutal.

I wonder how much taking on a metric shitton of transfers, many from TTTs and below, are hurting GULC's numbers.

It probably doesn't help. It would be interesting to see the transfers into GULC split out because that would give a better idea for people going to GULC as a 1L, and for people considering transferring to GULC.

Desert Fox wrote:I wonder if the Chicago market was poor in 2014. At northwestern, rumor was 2013 was a better year than 2014. I wonder if that was just because of the Chicago market and if it impacted Michigan as well.

IMO the "prestige" hypothesis is least convincing. I'd assume self selection is a much bigger factor in school to school variance.

It probably doesn't help. It would be interesting to see the transfers into GULC split out because that would give a better idea for people going to GULC as a 1L, and for people considering transferring to GULC.

Maybe a bit off topic but I am curious about the way this works out. My understanding is that, in general, an identical 1L who transfers to Georgetown or another top tier school for their 2L year and participates in OCI at the new school fares better than an identical 1L who does OCI at the original lower ranked school. I'm curious as to why.

Is it just the prestige of the name, even though nothing else has changed (they aren't ranked against the new school, right?) or is there a strong belief in a better educated attorney coming out of 2L and 3L year? Or do they view the admission office as an applicant filter?

It probably doesn't help. It would be interesting to see the transfers into GULC split out because that would give a better idea for people going to GULC as a 1L, and for people considering transferring to GULC.

Maybe a bit off topic but I am curious about the way this works out. My understanding is that, in general, an identical 1L who transfers to Georgetown or another top tier school for their 2L year and participates in OCI at the new school fares better than an identical 1L who does OCI at the original lower ranked school. I'm curious as to why.

Is it just the prestige of the name, even though nothing else has changed (they aren't ranked against the new school, right?) or is there a strong belief in a better educated attorney coming out of 2L and 3L year? Or do they view the admission office as an applicant filter?

More access to firms. Won't help a lot of GULC transfers, but at other top schools it's all about getting in front of more people who might hire you.

It probably doesn't help. It would be interesting to see the transfers into GULC split out because that would give a better idea for people going to GULC as a 1L, and for people considering transferring to GULC.

Maybe a bit off topic but I am curious about the way this works out. My understanding is that, in general, an identical 1L who transfers to Georgetown or another top tier school for their 2L year and participates in OCI at the new school fares better than an identical 1L who does OCI at the original lower ranked school. I'm curious as to why.

Is it just the prestige of the name, even though nothing else has changed (they aren't ranked against the new school, right?) or is there a strong belief in a better educated attorney coming out of 2L and 3L year? Or do they view the admission office as an applicant filter?

transfers simply get the opportunity of making their case w. a screener face to face instead of their app simply getting thrown out via mass-mail.

That's about it. It's harder to reject someone you like after talking to them

Desert Fox wrote:I wonder if the Chicago market was poor in 2014. At northwestern, rumor was 2013 was a better year than 2014. I wonder if that was just because of the Chicago market and if it impacted Michigan as well.

IMO the "prestige" hypothesis is least convincing. I'd assume self selection is a much bigger factor in school to school variance.

A bunch of people from NW here said 2014>>2013

we said overall OCI seemed better in 2014. the chicago market was tough (but it could just be relative that it stayed flat while NY got significantly easier). i guess we'll see when numbers get released in 2 years.

Didn't look at the other disclosures, but GULC's disclosure goes on to list many/all of the places people with school funded positions end up going. If someone really has time to kill, it might be worth checking up on these organizations to see if these people actually wound up getting hired at these Public Interest places. Some of them genuinely look like fillers, but a few of them could be pretty good.